Serum markers glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light for prognosis and monitoring in cognitively normal older people: a prospective memory clinic-based cohort study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundSerum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) are putative non-amyloid blood-based biomarkers indicative of ongoing inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease processes. We aimed to assess their prognostic and monitoring value for progression to dementia in individuals presenting at a memory clinic who are cognitively normal.MethodsFor this prospective cohort study, we included individuals who were cognitively normal from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort and received screening for dementia at first visit and annual follow-up visits. Participants without a serum sample stored in the Amsterdam Dementia Biobank within 6 months of baseline visit and without a follow-up diagnosis after a minimum of 6 months were excluded. We measured serum GFAP and NfL levels at baseline for all participants and at follow-up for a subset of participants. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we investigated associations of biomarker levels (Z-transformed) with incident dementia (adjusted for age and sex), by entering the markers first separately and then simultaneously, to test independent associations. We also assessed longitudinal performance of the markers on a standardised neuropsychological test battery covering global cognition, memory, language, executive functioning, and attention (adjusted for age, sex, and education). Finally, we evaluated the association of slopes of biomarker levels with incident dementia (adjusted for age and sex).FindingsBetween July 13, 2001, and Aug 17, 2016, 300 individuals were included in the study. Mean baseline age was 61 years (SD 9), 125 (42%) of participants were women, and mini-mental state examination was 29 (IQR 27–29). Median follow-up time was 3·0 years (IQR 1·9–4·2), with a median of three visits per participant (range 2–12; 1010 total neuropsychological evaluations). During follow-up, 27 (9%) of 300 individuals developed dementia. Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2–5·7; p<0·0001) and high baseline NfL (1·8, 1·2–2·8; p=0·0037) were associated with increased risk of dementia. When entering both markers simultaneously in the model, only GFAP remained associated with an increased risk of dementia (3·3, 1·9–5·5; p<0·0001). When additionally entering (inverted) plasma amyloid β42/40, both GFAP (2·6, 1·4–5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β42/40 (2·1, 1·2–3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8–2·5; p=0·28). Linear mixed models showed that higher baseline GFAP levels were associated with a steeper rate of decline in the domains of memory, attention, and executive functioning (pfalse discovery rate<0·05), whereas higher NfL levels were not. Repeated serum GFAP and NfL analyses revealed that NfL levels rose more steeply over time in individuals with incident dementia compared with those without (p=0·0006), whereas GFAP levels did not (p=0·074).InterpretationOur results suggest that, while serum NfL seems to have potential as monitoring biomarker, GFAP might be a valuable prognostic biomarker, predicting incident dementia.FundingAlzheimer Nederland, Gieskes Strijbis Fonds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle